SECTION II: GRANT PROGRAM INFORMATION
Notice of Grant Opportunity
Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) pilot program
PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION SYSTEM
12-RT03-A01
Christopher D. Cerf
Acting Commissioner of Education
April 2012
Application Due Date: May 30, 2012
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
email: EE4NJ@doe.state.nj.us
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
ARCELIO APONTE ………………………………………………. Middlesex
President
ILAN PLAWKER ………………………………………………….. Bergen
Vice President
MARK W. BIEDRON....................................................................... Hunterdon
DR. RONALD K. BUTCHER ……….…………………………… Gloucester
CLAIR CHAMBERLAIN Eckert………………………………. Somerset
JOSEPH FISICARO………………………………………………. Burlington
JACK A. FORNARO……………………………………………… Warren
EDITHE FULTON …………………………………………………. Ocean
ROBERT P. HANEY ……………………………………………… Monmouth
ERNEST P. LEPORE ……..………………………….……………. Hudson
ANDREW J. MULVIHILL…..……………………………………. Sussex
J. PETER SIMON………………………………………………….. Morris
DOROTHY S. STRICKLAND …………………………….………. Essex
Christopher Cerf, Acting Commissioner
Secretary, State Board of Education
It is a policy of the New Jersey State Board of Education and the State Department of Education that no person, on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, handicap or marital status, shall be subjected to discrimination in employment or be excluded from or denied benefits of any activity, program or service for which the department has responsibility. The department will comply with all state and federal laws and regulations concerning nondiscrimination.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1: GRANT PROGRAM INFORMATION
1.1 Description of EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Program 4 1.2 Eligibility to Apply 6
1.3 Federal Compliance Requirements (DUNS, CCR) 7
1.4 Statutory/Regulatory Source and Funding Considerations 7
1.5 Dissemination of This Notice 10
1.6 Technical Assistance 10
1.7 Application Submission 11
1.8 Reporting Requirements 12 1.9 Reimbursement Requests 12
SECTION 2: PROJECT GUIDELINES
1. Project Design Considerations 13
2. Project Requirements 13
3. Requirements for the Written Application 24
4. Budget Design Considerations 27
5. Budget Requirements 27
SECTION 3: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION
3.1 General Instructions for Applying 29
2. Review of Applications 29
3. Application Component Checklist 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES:
Appendix A Documentation of Eligibility Form: Single LEA Applicant 35
Appendix B Documentation of Eligibility Form: Consortium Lead Agency 36
Appendix C Affirmation of Consortium 37
Appendix D District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee Members 38
Appendix E Consortium Management Team 39
Appendix F Project-Specific Statement of Assurances 40
Appendix G Definitions and Explanations 42
Appendix H Principal Practice Evaluation Instruments 44
Appendix I Survey Instruments 46
Appendix J Data Management Systems 47
Appendix K Principal Evaluation Schematic 48
Notice of Grant Opportunity Title Page
SECTION 1: GRANT PROGRAM INFORMATION
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF EE4NJ PRINCIPAL EVALUATION PILOT PROGRAM
Introduction
A growing body of research has determined that the school principal plays a central role in raising student achievement and that leadership is second only to classroom instruction among school-related factors influencing student performance (Leithwood et al., 2004). The principal's role is significant because of the influence the principal has over school-wide conditions which are fundamental to both teachers' and students' success, such as establishing the school’s goals and sense of purpose, creating a culture of learning, ensuring school-wide implementation of a rigorous curriculum linked to standards and improving teacher effectiveness by supporting instruction, evaluation and professional development.
New Jersey, like the vast majority of other states, does not have an evaluation system that adequately measures and differentiates among varying levels of teacher and principal effectiveness. Governor Christie, as part of his comprehensive educational reform agenda, addressed this gap by calling for the development of an improved educator evaluation system and appointing the New Jersey Educator Effectiveness Task Force (EETF) in 2010 to provide recommendations on the design of such a system.
Goals for a Principal Evaluation System
The resulting Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report (EETF, 2011) has helped shape the work of the New Jersey Department of Education in developing criteria for a fair, credible, and rigorous system of principal evaluation. Such an evaluation system will serve multiple purposes. First, it will help districts to more systematically and accurately assess the effectiveness of principals so as to differentiate between those excelling and those struggling. Second, it will help to improve principals’ effectiveness by clarifying the expectations for performance, providing a common vocabulary and understanding of what principals need to know and be able to do, defining metrics that will be used to assess effectiveness, and providing meaningful feedback to inform a development plan for individual growth. Third, a more comprehensive principal evaluation system will support districts in creating school- and system-wide collaborative cultures focused on continuous improvement through the use of multiple sources of student, teacher and principal data to improve educators’ practice and student learning. Finally, a high-quality principal evaluation system will enable districts to improve their personnel decisions concerning school leadership and will provide important data for districts and the state to use in assessing progress, setting goals and priorities and making decisions about the professional development needs of school leaders.
Components of a Principal Evaluation System
The EETF report recommended a system of principal evaluation with two main components: (1) assessment of the quality of professional practice and (2) assessment of student performance. It was further recommended that the assessment of professional practice include a subcomponent on the principal’s role in hiring and retaining effective teachers and in exiting poor performing teachers. This component includes how the principal is held accountable for managing and implementing the teacher evaluation process and for supporting teachers in improving their effectiveness. The recommended components for a system of principal evaluation for the purposes of this pilot project are depicted graphically below.
[pic]
Purpose of the Principal Evaluation Pilot NGO
In 2011 the NJDOE created the Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) program to identify and fund districts willing to implement the EETF recommendations concerning teacher evaluation and provide feedback to the Department to inform statewide implementation. The NJDOE is now expanding the EE4NJ program to include a principal evaluation pilot program. In accordance with the NGO for the teacher pilot, the purpose of this NGO is to identify and fund districts willing to implement the EETF recommendations on the evaluation of principals and provide timely and considered feedback to the NJDOE to inform ongoing planning for statewide scale up and implementation.
Specifically, the NJDOE is seeking individual local education agencies (LEAs) or groups of LEAs who form a consortium to participate in the EE4NJ principal pilot program during the 2012-2013 school year. The NJDOE will select LEAs that demonstrate a readiness and commitment to implement the recommended evaluation system and who will engage in instrument testing and/or development, data-gathering, reporting and dialogue with the NJDOE during the pilot year.
Participants will benefit from state support, will actively engage with district educators and stakeholders in shaping evaluation development and implementation, and will help improve the system before it is implemented statewide with consequences. The final selection of participants will aim to represent a diverse sampling of LEAs/district consortia from multiple regions across the state.
Funds for this principal evaluation pilot program will be awarded by the NJDOE through a competitive grant process to eligible applicants who submit high quality proposals that demonstrate their capacity and commitment to carry out the terms and conditions stipulated for participation in the program. The grant period will cover a period of 15 months, from August 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013, in order to allow sufficient time for participants to collect and review student performance data from the 2012-2013 school year.
Pilot LEAs and consortia will be awarded funding partially based on their total number of active district- and school-level administrators, including, but not limited to, superintendents, assistant superintendents and other central office administrators, principals, vice/assistant principals, and supervisors (please see table in Section 1.4, Statutory/Regulatory Source and Funding). Should the district develop a program with costs exceeding funding provided through this grant, those costs will be borne by the district.
Letter of Intent
In order to gauge interest in this grant program, the NJDOE requests any LEAs or consortia interested in developing an application to submit a Letter of Intent to the Department no later than May 2, 2012. Each consortium is asked to include the names of all LEAs interested in participating.
The Letter of Intent may be submitted via email to marisa.miller@doe.state.nj.us or via regular mail to:
Application Control Center: EE4NJ Principal Grant Program
Attention: Marisa Miller
New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
No confirmation of receipt of the Letter of Intent will be provided. Potential applicants will not lose the opportunity to submit an application if they do not submit a Letter of Intent.
1.2 ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY
The EE4NJ principal evaluation pilot program is a limited competitive grant program open to LEAs, including charter schools, with active administrative and teaching staff in the State of New Jersey.
Jointure Commissions, Educational Service Commissions, and Special Services School Districts
are ineligible to apply for a grant under this program.
Eligible LEAs may apply individually or as part of a consortium but not both. An LEA that does not apply as a single applicant may apply as a lead agency of a consortium, or join other LEAs as a member of one consortium. An LEA may not belong to more than one consortium.
Responsibilities of a Consortium
Consortia participation must be district-wide. For the purposes of this pilot program each district consortium must establish one LEA to be the “lead agency.” The lead agency will serve as the applicant agency of record, as the legally recognized fiscal agent for the grant program, and as the single point of contact for the NJDOE for all grant management and reporting obligations. In
this role, the lead agency will be responsible for filing the EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Program NGO application for the consortium, constructing one budget representing the needs of all consortium member districts and conducting all procurements and contracting of services for all consortium member districts. In addition, the lead agency will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of all aspects of the grant including, but not limited to: the project and spending plan; grant program monitoring and reporting and fiscal management. The lead agency may not divest oversight responsibilities through a subgrant or to another member of the consortium. Please note that subgranting for any purpose is not allowed under this grant. The consortium will not be permitted to change lead-agency designation should there be subsequent grant periods.
Documentation of Eligibility
Single LEA applicants are required to complete and submit the Documentation of Eligibility form (Appendix A) as part of their application. Consortia lead agencies are required to complete and submit the Documentation of Eligibility for Lead Consortium Agency (Appendix B). All LEAs participating in a consortium application are required to complete and submit the Affirmation of Consortium form (Appendix C) as part of the consortium application.
1.3 FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS (DUNS, CCR)
When responding to this Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO), applicants must also access the "Discretionary Grant Application (DGA)" for additional information governing the grant program. This information may be accessed at or by calling the Application Control Center (ACC) at (609)-633-6974. General grant information can be found at njded/grants/.
In accordance with the Federal Fiscal Accountability Transparency Act (FFATA), all grant recipients must have a valid DUNS number and must also be registered with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. DUNS numbers are issued by Dun and Bradstreet and are available for free to all entities required to register under FFATA.
• To obtain a DUNS number, go to
• To register with the CCR database, go to
Applicants are required to complete and submit the Documentation of Federal Compliance (DUNS/CCR) form found at: in the DGA. This form must be submitted either with the grant application, or during the pre-award revision process. No award will be made to an applicant not in compliance with FFATA.
1.4 STATUTORY/REGULATORY SOURCE AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS
Grant recipients for the EE4NJ principal evaluation pilot program must plan and implement their projects in conformance with all applicable State and Federal requirements. The EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Program is 100% federally funded through Race To The Top, Phase 3 (RTTT3).
New Jersey’s EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Program will provide approximately $500,000 to fund a minimum of 10 projects.
Award amounts for the EE4NJ principal evaluation pilot program have been derived based on the average costs of known principal evaluation instrument providers/vendors and data management systems.[1] Depending on the provider(s) chosen by the LEA or lead agency to provide training or other program elements, total final costs may be higher or lower than the derived amount. Any costs exceeding the grant award must be borne by the LEA or consortium. Consortium lead agencies will receive additional funding calculated at 2% of the grant award to be used towards their administrative costs.
There are four costs that the grant awards are intended to cover: (1) training for all administrators; (2) site-based follow-up support for central office administrators; (3) data management system implementation; and (4) supporting materials such as surveys, books, manuals, or DVDs needed for the implementation. Awards will be computed based on a formula which takes into consideration the average costs for these four areas of implementation together with the total number of active administrators, the total number of active principals being evaluated, and the total number of LEAs under each award. The portion of the award based on the total number of administrators covers costs for the initial training of all active administrators as well as individual LEA site-based follow-up training intended to assist each LEA with implementation needs. The portion of the award based on the number of principals covers costs incurred for data management system user fees, surveys, books, supplies and materials to implement the principal practice instrument. In addition, each LEA will be awarded $3,000 for expenses related to data management and analysis beyond any user fees.
The total number of principals used to calculate the grant awards is based on principals alone and does not include vice/assistant principals. The total number of administrators used to calculate the grant awards includes all superintendents, assistant superintendents, other central office administrators, principals, vice/assistant principals, supervisors and mentors under active employment in each participating LEA. Please note: Although this pilot program will be focused solely on the evaluation of principals (not vice/assistant principals or supervisors), all administrators will be expected to participate in training on all components of the evaluation system.
LEAs with fewer than 10 total administrators are encouraged to join a consortium in order to provide opportunities for joint training, professional collaboration and capacity-building for implementing the evaluation system. The total number of administrators in a consortium is the sum of the active administrators from each participating LEA.
Awards will be determined according to the following formula:
(Number of Principals x $1,000) + (Number of LEAs x $3,000) + Allocation for Administrator Training Costs, where the allocation for the administrator training costs is determined from the chart below:
| Total number of |Allocation for Administrator Training Costs |
|administrators | |
|Up to 40 |$12,000 |
|41-80 |$24,000 |
|> 81 |$30,000 |
Example 1: According to this formula the grant allocation for a single participating LEA with 12 principals and 39 total administrators would be computed as (12 x $1,000) + (1 x $3,000) + $12,000 = $27,000. (Number of principals = 12; Number of LEAs = 1; Administrator training costs for 39 total administrators = $12,000)
Example 2: The grant allocation for a consortium of 3 districts where District 1 has 5 principals and 13 administrators, District 2 has 8 principals and 22 administrators, and District 3 has 3 principals and 10 administrators would be computed as (16 x $1,000) + (3 x $3,000) + $24,000 = $49,000 + $980 = $49,980. (Number of Principals = 16; Number of LEAs = 3; Administrator training costs for 45 total administrators = $24,000; 2% Administrative costs = $980)
Example 3: The grant allocation for a consortium of 5 districts where District 1 has 2 principals and 5 administrators, District 2 has 2 principals and 5 administrators, District 3 has 3 principals and 7 administrators, District 4 has 4 principals and 7 administrators and District 5 has 5 principals and 13 administrators (giving a total of 16 principals, 5 LEAs and 37 participating administrators) would be computed as (16 x $1,000) + (5 x $3,000) + $12,000 = $43,000 + $860 = $43,860. (Number of principals = 16; Number of LEAs = 5; Administrator training costs for 37 total administrators = $12,000; 2% Administrative costs = $860))
No single award including the 2% lead agency administration fee will exceed $50,000.
For the purpose of making awards under this grant opportunity, New Jersey has been geographically divided into three regions (North, Central and South) and further divided into 21 counties. The chart below indicates the counties located within each of the three regions.
|Northern Region |Central Region |Southern Region |
|Bergen County |Hunterdon County |Atlantic County |
|Essex County |Mercer County |Burlington County |
|Hudson County |Middlesex County |Camden County |
|Morris County |Monmouth County |Cape May County |
|Passaic County |Somerset County |Cumberland County |
|Sussex County |Union County |Gloucester County |
|Warren County | |Ocean County |
| | |Salem County |
In order to include the widest possible distribution of awards, the NJDOE will make awards in rank order of the application’s score by regional location, and subject to the availability of funds. Regional location of a consortium will be determined by the location of the lead agency. An applicant must score at least 65 points out of 100 possible points on the application review rubric to be considered eligible for an award. (See Section 3.2 for application point values.)
Awards will be for the period of August 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013. Final awards are subject to the availability of federal and state funds.
Only one formal round of pre-award revisions will be conducted. Grant award amounts will be based on the budget entries that are appropriately qualified and approvable after that round.
1.5 DISSEMINATION OF THIS NOTICE
The NJDOE will make this notice available to all eligible entities based on the eligibility statement and to the executive county superintendents of the counties in which the eligible LEAs are located.
Please note: This NGO does not constitute the complete application package. All applicants must use this NGO in combination with the Discretionary Grant Application (DGA), which contains required guidance, application forms and instructions necessary to prepare a complete application.
The DGA is available at or by contacting the Application Control Center at the New Jersey Department of Education, 100 River View Plaza, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500; telephone (609) 633-6974; fax (609) 777-1051.
Additional copies of the NGO are also available on the NJDOE web site or by contacting the New Jersey Department of Education, River View Executive Plaza, Building 100, Route 29, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500, Attn: Office of Grants Management; telephone (877) 454-3171; fax (609) 633-0160; email: EE4NJ@doe.state.nj.us. Please specify the principal evaluation pilot as the topic of your inquiry so that your message can be routed correctly.
1.6 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A technical assistance session will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2012. The session will be held from 1:30-3:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the New Jersey Department of Education, Building 100, River View Plaza, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500.
Attendance at the technical assistance session is not required, but applicants are encouraged to attend. Pre-registration is required to attend the technical assistance session. Online registration must be completed at no later than May 4, 2012. Registrants requiring special accommodations for the workshop should identify their needs at the time of registration.
E-mail inquiries may be directed to: EE4NJ@doe.state.nj.us. Please specify the principal evaluation pilot as the topic of your inquiry so that your message can be routed correctly.
1.7 APPLICATION SUBMISSION
The NJDOE administers discretionary grant programs in strict conformance with procedures designed to ensure accountability and integrity in the use of public funds and, therefore, will not accept late applications.
The responsibility for a timely submission resides with the applicant. Applicants must submit an original and four (4) copies of the completed application with all applicable forms, to the Application Control Center (ACC) no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 30, 2012. Without exception, the ACC will not accept, and the Office of Grants Management cannot evaluate for funding consideration, an application received after this deadline. An applicant agency will lose the opportunity to be considered eligible for an award if the application is received after the due date.
The original and four (4) copies of the application must be mailed or hand-delivered to the ACC. Postmarks are not acceptable evidence of timely submission. Receipt by the due date and time is required. Applicants are encouraged to obtain a dated receipt from the ACC or to sign in upon delivery to verify DOE receipt. Complete applications are those that include all elements listed in Section 3.3, Application Component Checklist, of this notice. Applications received by the due date and time will be screened to determine whether they are, in fact, eligible for consideration. The Department of Education reserves the right to reject any application not in conformance with the requirements of this NGO.
To ensure timely delivery, applicants are encouraged to:
• Hand-deliver the application to 100 River View Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey, which is located next to the Mercer County Waterfront Park on Route 29, between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (excluding state holidays) and obtain a dated receipt; or
• Send the application by Certified Mail or Return Receipt; or
• Arrange for delivery by an overnight courier service to ensure timely delivery.
The mailing and courier service addresses are listed in the chart below:
|Mailing Address |Courier Service Address |
|Application Control Center |Application Control Center |
|New Jersey Department of Education |New Jersey Department of Education |
|100 River View Plaza |100 River View Plaza |
|P.O. Box 500 |Trenton, NJ 08625 |
|Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 | |
Applications submitted via facsimile will not be accepted under any circumstances.
1.8 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Grant recipients are required to submit periodic project and fiscal progress reports. (For additional information about post award requirements see the Grant Recipient’s Manual for Discretionary Grants at: ). Reports will be reviewed to ascertain the degree of the grantee’s progress within the scope of work appropriate to the current agreement period and its conformance with the program requirements. The grantee is expected to complete all of the program requirements and to make satisfactory progress toward the completion of the comprehensive plan. Failure to do so may result in the withdrawal of current funding by the New Jersey Department of Education.
Fiscal and Program Reports for the EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot program will be submitted through the New Jersey Department of Education’s Electronic Web-Enabled Grant (EWEG) system, and are due as follows:
Report ____________ Reporting Period_____________________Due Date
1st Interim 08/01/12 – 11/30/12 12/31/12
2nd Interim 08/01/12 – 03/31/13 04/30/13
3rd Interim 08/01/12 – 07/31/13 08/30/13
Final 08/01/12 – 10/31/13 11/30/13
1.9 REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES
Reimbursement requests for any grant funds the local project has expended are made through the NJDOE Electronic Web-Enabled Grant (EWEG) system. Requests may begin once the contract has been fully executed and processed by the NJDOE. Grantees must submit requests at least ten business days before the end of the month, but not later than the 15th of the month. You may include in your request funds that will be expended through the last calendar day of the month in which you are requesting the reimbursement. If the grantees’ request is approved by the NJDOE program officer, the grantee should receive payment around the 8th-10th of the following month.
SECTION 2: PROJECT GUIDELINES
The intent of this section is to provide applicants with the structure within which they will design and implement their proposed principal evaluation system and address the purposes and requirements of this grant opportunity. Before preparing applications, potential applicants are advised to review Section 1.1 of this NGO, Description of the Grant Program, to ensure a full understanding of the state’s vision and purpose for offering the program. Additionally, Section 2 describes the specific considerations and requirements that must be addressed or included in an applicant’s principal pilot evaluation system.
1. PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The NJDOE seeks to improve principal evaluations across the state in order to provide district administrators with improved tools by which to measure principal effectiveness and differentiate between those who are excelling and those who need support. Moreover, all principals, regardless of experience, deserve meaningful feedback on their performance on an annual basis in order to improve their professional practice. Through this grant opportunity, LEAs will be chosen to pilot the principal evaluation system during the course of the 2012-13 school year. Participating LEAs will need to follow specific implementation requirements, but they will also be given the flexibility to develop some elements of their own within the parameters provided. The system developed and implemented will be used only to evaluate district administrators serving as principals and will not be applied to other district administrators serving as vice/assistant principals or supervisors during the pilot year. However, the NJDOE will be seeking input from participating LEAs on how to adapt the existing system to other administrative staff.
Successful grant applicants will describe how they will design, implement, and support a high-quality principal evaluation system for the purposes of assessing principal effectiveness and contributing to the knowledge base that will inform state-wide implementation. The importance of organizational commitment and stakeholder support for a new principal evaluation process cannot be overstated, and applicants should thoroughly document this commitment and support.
Each selected LEA/consortium will determine the manner in which it chooses to meet the project requirements. LEAs/consortia that secure an outside provider to assist them with their principal pilot program and/or their data management must ensure that their systems meet the stipulated criteria. LEAs/consortia that choose to implement their own principal evaluation and/or data management systems must be able to substantiate to NJDOE reviewers that their systems meet the stipulated requirements as a condition of award.
2.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
This section contains project requirements applicable to all participants. The state’s requirements for a robust principal evaluation system which must be incorporated into the work of each pilot district have been derived from the New Jersey EETF recommendations described in Section 1.1 above and the language included in New Jersey’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Request, submitted to the federal government in November 2011, both of which delineate the state’s plans to implement high quality teacher and principal evaluation systems.
2.2.1 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE EE4NJ PRINCIPAL EVALUATION PILOT PROGRAM
All participants in the EE4NJ principal pilot program are expected to adhere to the following requirements:
a. Implementation within the designated timeline;
b. Incorporation of specific evaluation system policies and procedures;
c. Alignment of principal and teacher evaluation systems
d. Provision of on-going support for evaluators and principals;
e. Implementation of a data management system to store and analyze evaluation data;
f. Formation of a district evaluation pilot advisory committee (DEPAC);
g. Creation and implementation of a pilot program communications plan;
h. Collaboration with the external researcher;
i. Collaboration with the NJDOE;
j. Development, testing, and/or adaptation of evaluation components, measures, processes and sources of evidence; and
k. Creation of a process for linking evaluation results to individual, school and district professional development planning
Each requirement is explained below.
Implementation within the Designated Timeline
Unless otherwise noted, all training, support and other implementation activities for this pilot program are to be conducted during the grant period, August 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013.
Incorporation of Specific Evaluation System Policies and Procedures
Participating LEAs will be expected to incorporate the following required elements into their principal evaluation policies and procedures:
a. An annual data collecting and reporting cycle for conducting principal evaluations;
b. The use of multiple measures of both principal performance and student performance, with student academic attainment or growth as a key measure to inform evaluation decisions;
c. A final summative rating given to each principal that combines the ratings or scores from all the principal evaluation system measures;
d. Four final summative rating categories that clearly differentiate levels of performance identified as highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective; and
e. A process to integrate the evaluation results with professional development plans that meet the identified needs of school leaders at all levels of expertise.
Alignment of principal and teacher evaluation systems
The principal's responsibilities for instructional leadership have been recognized as essential for improving teaching practice that results in higher levels of student learning. A key component of this leadership is the principal's responsibility for the supervision and evaluation of staff, including conducting observations of teaching, giving frequent and constructive feedback to teachers, and supporting teachers in their professional development. Ten percent of the principal’s practice evaluation rating will be based on these and other related human capital management responsibilities such as the recruitment and retention of teachers. Thus, successful grant applicants will be expected to describe the process they will use to align their policies and procedures for evaluating principals with their policies and procedures for evaluating teachers. Successful applicants will show how they are communicating and supporting a shared definition and understanding of effective teaching throughout their districts. In addition, they will be expected to describe how the central administration will support principals in carrying out their teacher supervision and evaluation responsibilities.
Provision of On-going Support for Evaluators and Principals
During the pilot year, all participating LEAs will be expected to apply the district’s selected principal practice evaluation instrument (see Section 2.2.2) to the assessment of every principal. Local boards and central administrations of each participating LEA will be expected to establish a process for supporting the evaluating administrators as well as the principals who are being evaluated, while also holding themselves accountable for implementation. Such support will involve on-going monitoring and coaching for evaluators to ensure fairness and consistency of implementation of the principal practice instrument. Moreover, during the pilot program, district administrators and local board leadership will be expected to support stable school and district learning environments focused on student achievement.
Implementation of a Data Management System to Store and Analyze Evaluation Data
Pilot LEAs are required to implement a comprehensive online or electronic data system and process for storing, organizing, analyzing and reporting evaluation data so that it can be used for their own analysis and for sharing with the NJDOE and an external evaluator. All evaluation data collected during the pilot program must be retained for a minimum of two years after the pilot program ends to ensure its availability for subsequent data analysis.
Formation of a District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (DEPAC)
Each participating LEA is expected to convene a district-level stakeholder advisory committee to oversee and guide the implementation of the principal effectiveness evaluation system during the pilot period. Membership on this committee must include representation from the following groups: building-level administrators from each school level (e.g., elementary, middle, high school); central office administrators supporting the principal evaluation process and/or conducting evaluations; teaching staff; and the local school board. In addition, the DEPAC must include the district superintendent and a parent representative. At the discretion of the chief school administrator, membership to serve on the district advisory committee may be extended to representatives of other groups.
In addition, the DEPAC must identify and include a communications coordinator, project director and data coordinator. The data coordinator will be responsible for managing all the data from the multiple components of the evaluation system linked to each principal, overseeing the process for combining these data sets into a final summative rating, and assisting the external research team with their requests for data. Finally, one member of the DEPAC must be identified to be the pilot program liaison with the NJDOE. NJDOE will convene all pilot district liaisons at least four times throughout the course of the pilot period to discuss implementation progress, share successes, obstacles and resources, and provide input to state policies on principal evaluation.
Please note: All New Jersey districts will ultimately need an integrated district advisory committee for overseeing implementation of their systems for both principal and teacher evaluations. In fact, this fall, the NJDOE is asking all New Jersey districts to establish a district advisory committee to build their capacity for implementation of a new teacher evaluation system in the 2013-14 school year. Thus, districts selected for this principal evaluation pilot program should plan to add members to the DEPAC they establish for this pilot in accordance with state recommendations for the teacher committee. Moreover, if an LEA selected to participate in this principal pilot program has been a participant in the 2011-12 EE4NJ teacher pilot program and has already developed a DEPAC team, the LEA may expand its existing committee by the number of members it needs to meet the required representation described in this section.
Consortium requirements: Each LEA participating through a consortium must convene a DEPAC team as described above to oversee its implementation of the principal evaluation system. In addition, each consortium must create a consortium management team to manage the pilot program across its members. The consortium management team must include the chief school administrator of the lead agency, at least one representative from each LEA participant, and the school business administrator or designated staff person from the lead agency who will oversee the procurement and distribution of services to participating LEAs. Other members can be added at the discretion of LEA participants.
Members of each DEPAC and consortium management committee must be provided to the NJDOE as part of the grant application (see Appendices D and E).
Creation and Implementation of a Pilot Program Communications Plan
To inform and build support from district, school and community stakeholders, LEA participants must develop and implement a transparent and effective communications plan that explains their principal evaluation system and their rationale for participating in this pilot program. In particular LEA participants must insure that their teaching staff are familiar with the components of the principal evaluation system and the district’s policies and process for aligning the principal and teacher evaluation systems. The communications plan should outline proposed timelines for completing various communications activities and should articulate specific activities and deadlines for sharing initial details with the district upon notification of award. LEAs will be required to create and maintain a communications strategy inclusive of a website presence to provide details and updates on the pilot implementation. The NJDOE communications staff will provide support and guidance for developing this plan and for adding an EE4NJ section to their existing websites.
Collaboration with the External Researcher
The New Jersey Department of Education expects to contract with an external researcher to evaluate the program and assess districts’ experiences in implementing their principal evaluation system during the pilot year. The evaluation of the pilots will allow the NJDOE to improve procedures, review measures and types of evidence, develop the appropriate supports for principals and superintendents and inform statewide implementation of the evaluation system. Grant recipients will be expected to fully participate in principal pilot evaluation activities and to respond to requests for feedback, access to staff, or any requests for data and information as determined by the external research team.
Collaboration with the NJDOE
Throughout the grant period, participating LEAs, through their designated liaisons, are expected to maintain open communication with the NJDOE and to provide representation at pilot project meetings convened by the NJDOE.
Development, Testing, and/or Adaptation of the Evaluation Components, Measures, Processes, and Sources of Evidence
Although the evaluation systems developed during this pilot program will be used only to evaluate administrators serving as principals, the NJDOE will be seeking input from participating LEAs on how to adapt their systems to create a fair, credible and accurate system of evaluation for other administrators such as vice/assistant principals and supervisors, so that the unique responsibilities of their respective roles can be identified and incorporated into the evaluation process. Each district advisory committee will be asked to provide specific suggestions for performance criteria, measurement tools and sources of evidence that would allow their systems to be adapted to include these additional groups.
In addition, participants will be encouraged to develop and/or test various tools and identify sources of evidence for assessing both principal and student performance in addition to those which may be included in instruments purchased from outside providers/vendors. Similarly, participants who contract with providers/vendors of a specific principal practice evaluation instrument are encouraged to work with the provider to adapt their tools to the Department’s required evaluation criteria.
Creation of a Process to Link Evaluation Results to District, School and Individual Professional Development Planning
Individual professional growth plans. All principals evaluated as part of this pilot program will be expected to reset their three-year professional growth plan (PGP) cycles so that they are beginning a new cycle at the start of the 2012-13 school year. The new PGP will include their individual- and school-level performance goals for the pilot period. At the end of the pilot program, the PGP will be revised to incorporate results from the evaluation process.
District and school level professional development plans. When creating their 2013-14 district-level professional development plans in spring 2013, participating LEAs will be expected to integrate any district-wide professional learning needs of principals identified as a result of implementing their principal evaluation system during the pilot program. Similarly, principals will be expected to use the information obtained through their observations and evaluations of teachers, as well as from their monitoring of school-specific student achievement goals, to inform the school-level professional development plan that they will share with the district planning committee.
2.2.2 REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING PRINCIPAL PRACTICE
This section contains project requirements specific to the design and implementation of the component of the principal evaluation system focused on an assessment of professional practice, which is to comprise 50% of the final summative evaluation rating. The requirements in this section have been derived from the recommendations in the NJ EETF report and the NJDOE ESEA waiver application.
Adoption of a Principal Practice Evaluation Instrument (accounting for 40% of the final summative evaluation rating derived from the evaluation of principals’ performance)
Pilot LEAs/consortium must select a high-quality, research-based or evidence-supported instrument for evaluating principal practice during the 2012-2013 school year (see Appendix G for the definition of a research-based or evidence-supported principal practice evaluation instrument). In addition, the instrument must:
a. Incorporate domains of practice and/or performance criteria that align to the 2008 ISLLC Professional Standards for School Leaders developed by the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (CCSSO, 2008, ).
b. Include rubrics that distinguish among a minimum of four levels of performance.
c. Be based on multiple sources of evidence collected throughout the pilot year.
d. Incorporate evidence from a minimum of two school site-based observations of principals’ practice per year for tenured principals and a minimum of three per year for nontenured principals.
e. Include an assessment of progress on at least one individual, school, and/or district performance goal related to professional practice.
f. Incorporate feedback from teachers regarding principal performance. The evaluation of principal performance may also incorporate feedback from other stakeholder groups (such as parents or students) as deemed appropriate to individual, school, or district performance goals.
g. Incorporate an assessment of the principal’s leadership for implementing a rigorous curriculum and assessments aligned to the NJ Core Curriculum Content standards.
h. Incorporate an assessment of the principal’s leadership for high-quality instruction.
i. Include an assessment of the principal’s performance in evaluating teachers.
j. Include an assessment of the principal’s support for teachers’ professional growth.
Selecting a Principal Practice Evaluation Instrument
Participating LEAs/consortia who secure the services of an outside provider for their principal practice instrument must ensure that the chosen instrument meets the criteria that the instrument be research-based or evidence-supported. LEAs/consortia who contract with an outside provider must also ensure that the provider has the necessary capacity to support the LEAs/consortia in meeting the requirements for implementation of this component. In addition, providers, in collaboration with LEA participants, must be able to provide any data from the measures of principal practice that may be requested by an external researcher.
Appendix H lists some providers whose instruments are known to meet the required criteria. LEAs/consortia may select a provider from this list or may select another provider. If an LEA wishes to use a principal practice evaluation instrument not identified in Appendix H, as a condition of award the applicant must document how its chosen instrument is evidence-supported or research-based (as defined in Appendix G) and meets the criteria listed in Section 2.2.2 above. The LEA must also justify why this instrument has been selected and explain how the chosen instrument meets the needs of the district.
Participating LEAs or lead agencies will be responsible for using their grant funds to purchase any resources and materials necessary for supporting the selected principal practice evaluation instrument, such as manuals, DVDs, on-line tutorials, training materials, etc., and to provide principals and their evaluators with access to these resources.
Human Capital Management Responsibilities (accounting for 10% of the final summative evaluation rating derived from the evaluation of principals’ performance)
The EETF report recommended that 10% of the principal’s professional practice evaluation score be based on the principal’s effectiveness in human capital management responsibilities, such as recruiting and retaining effective teachers and exiting ineffective ones. However, it is the case that principals have varying levels of influence on human resource decisions such as hiring, placement, and termination of teaching staff. Thus, for the purposes of this pilot program, LEA/consortium participants will be expected to base their ratings/scores on this evaluation component of principal performance primarily on the principal’s effectiveness in supervising, evaluating and supporting teaching staff, as this is an area of human capital management for which principals hold the primary leadership responsibility in their schools (reflected in items h, i, and j in the list of required criteria above).
Sources of evidence for the 10% component. The evidence to be used for evaluating this component must be identified and measured in a standardized approach throughout the participating LEA/consortium. Participants working with external providers are encouraged to seek assistance from their provider for identifying measures for this component of practice.
Those evaluating principals will be expected to seek evidence of the principal’s effectiveness in:
a. Fulfilling the requirements of district policies for the supervision and evaluation of teachers;
b. Observing and rating teachers consistently and accurately; and
c. Conducting pre- and post- observation conferences and providing teachers with feedback that will support them in improving their practice.
Other sources of evidence relating to this component of professional practice that could be included are documentation of the principal’s effectiveness in:
a. Recruiting and/or retaining teaching staff;
b. Developing and monitoring teachers’ required individual professional development plans;
c. Managing the implementation of the required school level professional development plan;
d. Providing opportunities for collaborative work time; and
e. Providing high quality professional development opportunities for staff. (see for Learning Forward’s definition of high quality professional development).
Participants who develop their own rubrics for assessing evidence on this required component will be expected to submit them to the NJDOE for approval.
Required Training on the Principal Practice Evaluation Instrument
Rigorous and comprehensive training on the professional practice evaluation instrument and its application must be provided prior to October 31, 2012. Training on the instrument is absolutely required for the following: all district- and school-level administrators, including, but not limited to, superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, mentors and other administrative staff responsible for evaluating or supporting principals; and all principals, vice/assistant principals, and supervisors. School board members are strongly encouraged to participate in training as well.
As a result of training, all participants should understand the principal practice evaluation instrument’s domains/components of effective practice, specific performance indicators, rubrics and sources of evidence.
Administrators who will evaluate principals must demonstrate that they can apply the principal performance evaluation instrument accurately and consistently. Training providers must issue certificates or statements of assurances that the evaluators have completed training on the instrument and its application.
Follow-Up Training and Auditing for Central Office Administrators
After completion of the initial training on the evaluation practice instrument, each pilot LEA is expected to create time for follow-up training for those administrators who are evaluating principals and any other central office staff involved in implementing the evaluations. The purpose of this training is to provide the administrators with an opportunity to discuss implementation issues and concerns once they have begun applying the practice instrument in their districts and to receive additional support, as necessary. This follow-up support opportunity must be conducted at individual LEA sites for each member of an LEA participating in a consortium.
In addition, participating LEAs/consortia must design a process on their own or in collaboration with their instrument provider to check the accuracy and consistency of those evaluating principals at least once per semester during the pilot year. Such auditing of evaluator performance will need to occur in each district participating in a consortium.
Use of 360° Surveys and Other Tools
Pilot year participants are encouraged to supplement their principal practice evaluation instrument by testing the use of “360° surveys” which assess principal practice based on ratings by colleagues and other members of the school community or by using other survey instruments that assess principal performance. For the purposes of this pilot project, it is recommended that scores from these instruments be used as formative sources of feedback to inform the principal’s professional growth plan.
2.2.3 REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING STUDENT PERFORMANCE
This section contains project requirements specific to the design and implementation of the component of the principal evaluation system focused on assessing student performance, which is to comprise 50% of the total evaluation rating.
Required Criteria for Measuring Student Performance
In both the EETF report and ESEA Flexibility Waiver language it was recommended that 35% of the total evaluation score be derived from aggregated measures of student achievement. This measure or combination of measures should capture how the school is improving as a whole in terms of student achievement levels.
In addition, it was recommended that every principal should be measured on at least one school-specific goal related to student performance. This measure or combination of measures will comprise 15% of the total evaluation of a principal’s performance and be focused on improved student achievement of a targeted subset of students.
Within these guidelines pilot participants will be expected to work with the NJDOE to identify appropriate measures of student achievement and growth, the process for integrating these measures into the principal effectiveness evaluation system, and the development of rubrics to combine these components into a final rating on the 50% student performance component of the principal evaluation system. Ultimately, the new teacher evaluation system will incorporate measures of student performance; thus an important goal for the development of a new principal evaluation system is to determine the process by which the student measures used in the teacher evaluation system are directly correlated with the principal’s evaluation ratings.
Much of the work of this pilot year around student achievement measures will be developmental in nature. Districts who have participated in the 2011-12 EE4NJ Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot Program and who have begun the process of developing student assessments for the evaluation of teachers in non-tested grades and subjects will play a key role in determining how their processes could be scaled up to span student performance in all subjects and grades in order to provide school-wide aggregate measures for the principal evaluation component.
Measures of Aggregate Student Achievement (accounting for 35% of the final summative evaluation rating derived from the evaluation of student performance)
For the evaluation of elementary school and middle school principals in the pilot project, school-wide student growth in English/Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics on the statewide NJASK assessments, will be a required source of data for this evaluation component, with each accounting for 10% of the principal’s rating on this component. Principals and their evaluators will be expected to set specific growth targets for these components.
For the evaluation of high school principals in the pilot project, the change in school-wide passing rates on the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) will be a required source of data for this evaluation component. Specifically, 10% of the rating on this component will be based on the change in the passing rate of students taking the HSPA for the first time in their junior year, as measured by passing rates from the 2011-12 school year and the 2012-13 school year. Another 10% of the rating will be based on the change in the passing rate of the remainder of students who take the HSPA in their senior year, as measured by passing rates from the 2011-12 school year and the 2012-13 school year. Principals and their evaluators will be expected to set specific improvement targets for these components.
Because standardized state assessments are unavailable for students in many subjects and grades, pilot participants will work with the NJDOE to test a goal-setting process which could eventually be used to determine the remaining 15% of the rating based on student performance. Principals will be expected to work with teacher teams to set “S.M.A.R.T” goals for student achievement in a minimum of two content areas not assessed by state standardized tests and which are aligned to the curriculum, school and/or district priorities. For each goal, participants will be expected to specify the current/baseline level of performance, the desired change in performance (the “target”), how performance will be measured (the “performance indicators”), and the final student results. “S.M.A.R.T.” goals are goals that are strategic and specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and time-bound (see Appendix G for examples and more information).
Possible Measures of School-Specific Student Performance Goals (accounting for 15% of the final summative evaluation rating derived from the evaluation of student performance)
A school-specific goal must reflect a targeted area of need for student improvement identified by each principal in collaboration with his or her evaluator, and be based on a review of past student performance results, an understanding of school and district goals and the principal’s professional growth plan. Some examples of school-specific student performance goals are: closing the achievement gap between native English speakers and English-language learners on the 7th grade NJASK test in ELA; improving 10th grade student achievement in Algebra I; or improving 3rd grade students’ fitness levels. For the pilot year evaluation, principals will be expected to set one school-specific performance goal of this nature, following the requirements for S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting given above. This goal should address student achievement in a content area and will account for no less than 10% of the rating. An additional goal may be set to address scholastic or non-scholastic aspects of student performance such as attendance, which would account for no more than 5% of the rating.
Appendix K provides an overview of the components of the principal evaluation system for the pilot project.
2.2.4 IMPLEMENTING THE EVALUATION DURING THE PILOT PERIOD
For purposes of this pilot, the implementation of the evaluation will take place over a fifteen month cycle. The evaluation cycle will begin as soon as the initial training has been completed. Each principal in the pilot project will be expected to have an assigned lead evaluator. Pilot participants will be expected to follow an evaluation cycle which includes the activities given below.
Recommended Evaluation Cycle
Prior to October 31: The evaluation process begins with a planning meeting between the principal and his or her evaluator. That meeting will be used to review the principal practice evaluation instrument, to identify sources of evidence for the competencies assessed by the instrument, and to set professional growth goals. The meeting will also be used to review the previous year’s student assessment data and set the goals for student achievement.
Prior to February 15: The evaluator will conduct a mid-year review conference to provide feedback and assess progress towards the pre-determined goals.
Prior to May 15: A summative evaluation conference will be held, during which time the principal and evaluator review the evidence from the evaluator’s and principal’s self-assessment together with the evaluator’s annual report and final rating on the principal performance component of the evaluation system. At this point, any student data which are available for inclusion in the evaluation process should be reviewed as well. During this conference the evaluator and principal will also create the required professional growth plan.
Throughout the 2012-13 school year: The evaluator will conduct a minimum of two school visits to observe tenured principals and a minimum of three school visits to observe nontenured principals. During the school visits, the evaluator will collect evidence of principal performance and provide feedback. During at least one of these visits the evaluator is expected to observe the principal as s/he conducts a teacher observation and provides feedback to the teacher. The principal practice evaluation instrument, the principal’s professional growth plan as well as school and district goals should inform the activities chosen to be observed by the evaluator.
During the 2012-13 school year the principal will collect evidence to prepare and document a self-assessment against the principal practice evaluation instrument.
Prior to October 31 of the 2013-14 school year: All other student data relevant to the principal’s evaluation must be analyzed and used to determine a final rating on the student performance component of the evaluation system. The evaluator will then use the ratings from both the principal performance component and the student performance component to determine an overall summative evaluation rating of ineffective, partially effective, effective or highly effective. The principal and evaluator will meet as early as possible in the fall to review these data against the identified student performance goals and discuss the overall summative rating. This meeting also serves as the planning meeting for the 2013-14 evaluation cycle.
Sources of Evidence
The use of multiple sources of evidence is required as part of a robust system of principal evaluation. The following guidelines are suggested:
a. Evidence should be collected throughout the year by both the principal and the evaluator.
b. A single source of evidence may sometimes be used to document achievement on more than one performance indicator.
c. Decisions on what is collected as evidence should align with the evaluation instrument, the human capital management expectations, the school and district student achievement goals, and the principal’s individual professional growth goals.
2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WRITTEN APPLICATION
The applicant must provide the following written components as a part of the application: Abstract; Background Information; Pilot Project Description; Goals, Objectives and Indicators; Activity Plan and Organizational Commitment and Capacity.
2.3.1 ABSTRACT (not to exceed two pages)
The project abstract is a succinct two-page summary of your proposed project’s need, purpose and intended outcomes that provides a snapshot of your application.
2.3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (45 points)
The project description component of the application consists of two sections: Background Information and Pilot Project Description.
Background Information (15 of the 45 points)
Please provide a narrative which addresses the items below. Lead agencies, your responses should address these items for each member of your consortium.
a. Why do you, as an individual district applicant or a consortium of districts, want to participate in this pilot program?
b. Why should your LEA/consortium be chosen as a principal evaluation pilot site?
c. What are potential barriers that need to be addressed in your LEA/consortium before a new principal evaluation system can be implemented? What strategies are currently being discussed or implemented to overcome the identified barriers?
e. What is your current system for evaluating principals? How do you evaluate principal performance and how are student performance data included as part of your system? What is notable about your current system that will help you transition to the new requirements?
f. What is your current system for evaluating teachers? How do you evaluate teacher performance and how are student performance data included as part of your system? What is notable about your current teacher evaluation system that will inform your adoption of a principal evaluation system?
g. How does your district currently manage the data associated with educator evaluations, and what are your staffing resources for data and technology support?
h. How do you currently support school leader professional development in your district?
Pilot Project Description (30 of the 45 points)
In the pilot project description, applicants must provide their plans for implementing the evaluation system by addressing the areas provided below. If you are the lead agency applicant for a consortium and your participating LEAs will have significantly different responses to these areas, please prepare your responses to be inclusive of the participating LEAs.
a. Principal Practice Evaluation: Please identify the principal practice evaluation instrument you selected. On what basis did you make this selection? How will it meet the needs of your LEA/consortium? If you have chosen to use a principal practice evaluation instrument not identified in the appendix of this NGO, you must provide a justification for your selection and document how the instrument is evidence-supported or research-based (as defined in Appendix G) and meets the criteria listed in Section 2.2.2.
In addition, please describe any plans you may have for utilizing measures such as 360° surveys to supplement your chosen principal practice evaluation instrument.
b. Alignment of Principal and Teacher Evaluation Systems: Describe the process you will use to align policies and procedures for evaluating principals with policies and procedures for evaluating teachers. Explain how you will communicate and support a shared definition and understanding of effective teaching throughout your LEA/consortium. In addition, describe how the central administration will support principals in carrying out their student achievement goal-setting, teacher supervision and evaluation responsibilities.
c. Training: Explain your strategies for ensuring that all administrators receive full training and follow-up opportunities as outlined in the NGO. While fulfilling the training requirements, what are your plans to monitor the quality of the training? Explain how you will address instances of inadequate training as identified by feedback. In addition, please describe what procedures will you use to audit evaluators’ application of the principal practice evaluation instrument as well as your plans for providing training to any new administrators who join the district during the pilot period.
d. Central Office Responsibilities: Please explain how you will organize central office administrators so that they have the time and capacity to fully implement this evaluation system. What will be the superintendent’s role in implementing this system? Describe how will you develop the capacity of the central office administrators to give high quality feedback to principals regarding their performance.
e. Stakeholder Involvement: Please describe the responsibilities of your district advisory committee and explain how you will provide the necessary time and resources for the advisory committee members to fulfill their responsibilities. (You must list your committee members in Appendix D). How will you monitor the development and implementation of the principal evaluation process and gather feedback? For consortium applicants: In addition to the above, please provide a description of the responsibilities of the consortium management committee in overseeing the consortium activities and your plan for how this group will function.
f. Communication: Please describe the key components and strategies you will use to build awareness and support from key stakeholders upon notification of award and throughout the pilot year. In particular, how will you communicate with parents and the school community about the principal evaluation pilot? For consortium applicants: What are your plans for communicating across districts about the pilot project and for ensuring that the communications are consistent and accurate?
g. Student Performance Measures: Please share your preliminary thinking on how you will incorporate student performance measures into your principal evaluation system. How will you use your teachers’ student performance results to inform your evaluation or principals? What will be the process by which you will determine student achievement goals?
h. Curriculum Implementation: What is the status of your district in implementing the Common Core State Standards, and how will these new standards change expectations for teacher and principal practice? How will these changed expectations be incorporated into your principal evaluation system?
i. Professional Development: Please explain how you will provide principals with professional learning experiences to support improvement as needs are identified through the evaluation system. In addition, explain how you will incorporate the professional learning needs of principals in your district level professional development planning process.
2.3.3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS (10 points)
The applicant must develop local goals, objectives and indicators for the principal evaluation system that are consistent with the NJDOE goals stated in Section 1.1, Description of EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Program. Clearly identify what your project is intended to accomplish. The project’s specific objectives should be results-oriented and prioritized. Establish indicators of success for each project goal and corresponding objective. Explain who will be responsible for monitoring the project’s implementation and determining if the project has met its goals.
2.3.4 PROJECT ACTIVITY PLAN (15 points)
The applicant must provide a preliminary timeline for all key training, advisory committee, and communications activities to be implemented during the 2012-2013 school year for your LEA/consortium members. The timeline must also include a schedule for follow-up training and auditing activities for each LEA, including those who are members of a consortium. Please refer to the DGA for the Project Activity Plan form.
2.3.5 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND CAPACITY (25 points)
The applicant must describe the LEA/consortium’s commitment and capacity for implementing the principal evaluation pilot project and for providing the necessary material and human resources to fulfill the required activities for the pilot. Please address the following areas:
a. The level of commitment of key stakeholder groups;
b. The extent to which existing official policies, practices and contracts (including labor agreements) will support or challenge implementation, and how the challenges will be addressed;
c. Your ability to provide time, support and resources so that trainers, evaluators, principals, advisory committee members and others implementing the principal evaluation system can fulfill their responsibilities;
d. Your commitment and capacity to support principals’ professional growth and development;
e. Your ability to comply with the data management needs of the evaluation implementation; and
f. Your commitment to work with the NJDOE in the development of principal practice measures, student achievement goals, and student performance measures to fulfill the requirements of the evaluation system.
2.4 BUDGET DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
General guidance on how to construct the budget and how to construct budget entries are provided in the Discretionary Grants Application document, which is available at: . It is strongly recommended that all applicants work with their business administrators when constructing the budget.
2.5 BUDGET REQUIRMENTS
EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot program funds must be spent exclusively on the LEA/consortium’s work on implementing its pilot principal evaluation system and the associated costs. Evaluation pilot grant funds are not eligible for reallocation. Subgranting for any purpose is not permitted. Please refer to the DGA for necessary Budget Forms.
Each consortium applicant must provide a single budget assembled and implemented by the consortium lead agency.
2.5.1 BUDGET (5 points)
Each budget item must be clearly aligned with the goals and objectives specified in the Project Activity Plan. The NJDOE will disallow all ineligible costs listed below, as well as costs not supported by the Project Activity Plan. Below are eligible and ineligible costs.
Eligible Costs:
a. Training costs associated with the principal evaluation system;
b. Materials, resources, equipment, software or other tools to support training and professional development associated with the implementation of the principal evaluation system;
c. Services of outside providers and/or consultants supporting the evaluation pilot work;
d. Services associated with data collection/reporting/analysis and implementing an online or electronic data management system, including training and licenses;
e. Costs associated with ongoing coaching and support of evaluators.
Ineligible Costs:
a. Costs associated with the writing of the application and/or the preparation of bid documents;
b. Substitutes and stipends associated with activities within the scope of the grant;
c. Classroom instructional materials;
d. Materials, resources, equipment, software or other tools not required to support the training and professional development associated with the implementation of the principal evaluation system;
e. Capital improvements;
f. Facilities rental;
g. Salaries of administrative or clerical personnel;
h. Travel expenses (including meals and lodging) for school personnel;
i. Indirect costs.
SECTION 3: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION
3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLYING
To apply for a grant under this NGO, applicants must prepare and submit a complete application. Your application must be a response to the State’s vision as articulated in Section 1: Grant Program Information of this NGO. It must be planned, designed and developed in accordance with the program requirements articulated in Section 2: Project Guidelines of this NGO. Your application package must also be constructed in accordance with the guidance, instructions, and forms found only in the DGA and NGO.
2. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
Evaluators will use the selection criteria found in Part I: General Information and Guidance of the DGA to review and rate how well your application addresses Sections 1 and 2 in this NGO. Each application is evaluated and rated by a panel of three readers. The panels for this NGO review will each consist of two readers external to the NJDOE who are knowledgeable in the content area and one internal NJDOE staff person who is knowledgeable in the content area.
Please be advised that in accordance with the Open Public Records Act P.L. 2001, c. 404, all applications for discretionary grant funds received September 1, 2003 or later, as well as the evaluation results associated with these applications, and other information regarding the competitive grants process, will become matters of public record upon the completion of the evaluation process, and will be available to members of the public upon request.
Applications will also be reviewed for their completeness and accuracy. The following point values will apply to the evaluation of applications received in response to this NGO:
| |Point Value |
|PROJECT DESCRIPTION |45 |
|GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS |10 |
|PROJECT ACTIVITY PLAN |15 |
|ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND CAPACITY |25 |
|BUDGET |5 |
|TOTAL |100 |
All applications must score 65 points or above to be considered eligible for funding.
3.3 APPLICATION COMPONENT CHECKLIST
To assist you with organizing your application, the list of required application forms for a single LEA applicant and a consortium lead agency applicant are provided on the following pages, respectively. Please be sure to follow the correct checklist to ensure that all required forms are included in your application. Failure to include a required form may result in your application being removed from consideration for funding.
Note: You will find the Application Title Page and all special forms provided in the Appendices to the NGO. All other required forms are part of the Discretionary Grant Application packet and can be downloaded from the Internet at .
REQUIRED APPLICATION FORMS FOR SINGLE LEA APPLICANTS
|Required |Location |Form |Included |
|(⎫) | | |(⎫) |
|⎫ |NGO |Notice of Grant Opportunity Title Page | |
|⎫ |NGO |Documentation of Eligibility (Appendix A) | |
|⎫ |NGO |District Evaluation Advisory Committee (Appendix D) | |
|⎫ |NGO |Project-Specific Statement of Assurances (Appendix F) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Board Resolution to Apply | |
|⎫ |DGA |Statement of Assurances | |
|⎫ |DGA |Documentation of Federal Compliance (DUNS / CCR) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Abstract (Not to exceed two pages) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Description (Not to exceed 25 pages) (Background Information and Pilot | |
| | |Project Description | |
|⎫ |DGA |Goals, Objectives and Indicators (Not to exceed three pages) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Activity Plan | |
|⎫ |DGA |Organizational Commitment and Capacity (Not to exceed seven pages) | |
| |DGA* |Budget Form A: Full-Time and Part-Time Salaries |N/A |
| |DGA* |Budget Form B: Personal Services – Employee Benefits |N/A |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form C: Purchased Professional and Technical Services | |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form D: Supplies and Materials | |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form E: Equipment | |
|⎫ |DGA* | Budget Form F: Other Costs | |
| |DGA* | Sub-grant Budget Summary |N/A |
|⎫ |DGA | Application for Funds – Budget Summary | |
| |DGA | Matching Funds Summary and Expenditure Report |N/A |
* Budget forms are required when applicable costs are requested.
REQUIRED APPLICATION FORMS FOR CONSORTIUM APPLICANTS
|Required |Location |Form |Included |
|(⎫) | | |(⎫) |
|⎫ |NGO |Notice of Grant Opportunity Title Page | |
|⎫ |NGO |Documentation of Eligibility Form for Consortium Lead Agency (Appendix B) | |
|⎫ |NGO |Affirmation of Consortium (Appendix C - one per LEA in a consortium) | |
|⎫ |NGO |District Evaluation Advisory Committee (Appendix D – one per LEA in a consortium) | |
|⎫ |NGO |Consortium Management Team (Appendix E) | |
|⎫ |NGO |Project-Specific Statement of Assurances (Appendix F) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Board Resolution to Apply (one per LEA in a consortium) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Statement of Assurances (one per LEA in the consortium) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Documentation of Federal Compliance (DUNS / CCR) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Abstract (Not to exceed two pages) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Description (Not to exceed 25 pages) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Goals, Objectives and Indicators (Not to exceed three pages) | |
|⎫ |DGA |Project Activity Plan | |
|⎫ |DGA |Organizational Commitment and Capacity (Not to exceed seven pages) | |
| |DGA* |Budget Form A: Full-Time and Part-Time Salaries |N/A |
| |DGA* |Budget Form B: Personal Services – Employee Benefits |N/A |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form C: Purchased Professional and Technical Services | |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form D: Supplies and Materials | |
|⎫ |DGA* |Budget Form E: Equipment | |
|⎫ |DGA* | Budget Form F: Other Costs (Lead Agency add 2% administrative cost column as explained| |
| | |in the NGO) | |
| |DGA* | Sub-grant Budget Summary |N/A |
|⎫ |DGA | Application for Funds – Budget Summary | |
| |DGA | Matching Funds Summary and Expenditure Report |N/A |
*Budget forms are required when applicable costs are requested.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Interstate School Leadership Licensing Consortium (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Council of Chief State School Officers, April 2008. (http:/ Resources/Publications).
Leithwood, K. et al. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
New Jersey Educator Effectiveness Task Force (2011). Interim report. New Jersey Department of Education, March 1, 2011.
New Jersey’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Request (February, 2012).
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Documentation of Eligibility Form: Single LEA Applicant Only
Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) Principal Pilot Evaluation Program
Single applicant LEAs must complete and submit this form with the application.
District Name: _____________________________ Region: (circle one) North/Central/South
Instructions: Please enter the appropriate numbers in the tables below. Then use these totals to calculate your grant award according to the given formula.
Table A. Total No. of Principals To Be Evaluated
|Principals in District |Total |
|(do not include vice/asst. principals) | |
Table B: Total No. of Administrators
|No. in |No. of |No. of |No. of |Others |Total |
|Central |Principals |Vice/assistant |Supervisors |(e.g., school board, | |
|Office |(from Table A) |principals | |mentors) | |
| | | | | | |
Table C: Allocation for Administrator Training
|Total No. of |Allocation for Administrator Training Costs |
|Administrators | |
|(Use total from Table B) | |
|Up to 40 |$12,000 |
|41-80 |$24,000 |
|> 81 |$30,000 |
Grant Award Calculation: (refer to p. 8-9 for more information)
|No. of Principals | | | |Allocation for Administrator Training Costs |Grant Award |
|(Use total from Table A) | | | |(Use amount from Table C) | |
|X $1000 | | | | | |
| |+ |$3000 |+ | | |
I certify that the information is complete and accurate.
CSA Signature: ____________________________ Date: _______________
CSA Printed Name and Title: ____________________________________________________
Appendix B
Documentation of Eligibility Form: Consortium Lead Agency Only
Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) Principal Pilot Evaluation Program
Consortium lead agencies must complete and submit this form with the application.
Consortium Lead Agency Name: _____________________________
Region: (circle one) North/Central/South
Instructions: Please enter the appropriate numbers in the tables below. Then use these totals to calculate your grant award according to the given formula.
Table A. Total No. of Principals To Be Evaluated
|All Principals in Consortium |Total |
|(do not include vice/asst. principals) | |
Table B: Total No. of Administrators (enter the appropriate nos. in each category for each LEA)
|LEA Name |No. of Central |No. of Principals |No. of Vice/assistant|No. of Supervisors|Others |Total No. of |
|(Note: Total no. of |Office Admins. |(Note: Total in this |Principals | |(e.g., school |Administrators in LEA |
|LEAs listed should | |column should equal | | |board, | |
|equal no. in award | |Table A total) | | |mentors) | |
|formula) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |Grand |
| | | | | | |Total: |
Table C: Allocation for Administrator Training
|Total No. of |Allocation for Administrator Training Costs |
|Administrators | |
|(Use grand total from | |
|Table B) | |
|Up to 40 |$12,000 |
|41-80 |$24,000 |
|> 81 |$30,000 |
Grant Award Calculation: (refer to p. 8-9 for more information)
|No. of Principals | |
|(Use Table A total) | |
|X $1000 | |
|Member/Role |Name |Job Title |Email |Phone |
|District Liaison to NJDOE | | | | |
|EE4NJ Project Director | | | | |
|District Data Coordinator | | | | |
|Communications Coord. | | | | |
|E.S. Principal | | | | |
|M.S. Principal | | | | |
|H.S. Principal | | | | |
|Teacher | | | | |
|CSA | | | | |
|Central Office Admin. | | | | |
|Parent | | | | |
|School Board | | | | |
|Other(s) | | | | |
| | | | | |
Please list the tentative date and location of your first DEPAC meeting:
Date: __________________ Location: ______________________________
Appendix E
Consortium Management Team
Please list the members of your consortium management team and submit with your application.
|Consortium Lead Agency: | |
|Principal Practice | |
|Evaluation Instrument | |
|(& Provider if appl.) | |
|Member/Role |Name/District |Job Title |Email |Phone |
|Lead Agency CSA | | | | |
|Lead Agency SBA | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|LEA | | | | |
|Representative | | | | |
|Other(s) | | | | |
| | | | | |
Please list the tentative date and location of your first Consortium Management Team meeting:
Date: __________________ Location: ______________________________
Appendix F
Project-Specific Statement of Assurances
Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) Principal Grant Program
This two-page form must be completed and submitted with the application.
As the Chief School Administrator (of a single LEA applicant or consortium lead agency), I attest to the following:
• The LEA/consortium will be a full participant, and will fully participate, in the EE4NJ principal pilot project.
• The LEA/consortium will use a principal practice evaluation instrument that is evidence-supported or research-based and demonstrated to be valid and reliable for the purposes described herein.
• The principal practice evaluation instrument training and evaluation procedures will be implemented according to the requirements set forth in this NGO.
• The LEA/consortium’s involvement in the EE4NJ Principal Evaluation Pilot Project will include all principals in the LEA/consortium.
• The LEA/consortium has a commitment from key stakeholder groups (central office administrators, school administrators conducting evaluations, principals and the local school board) to support the principal pilot program in SY2012-2013 and SY2013-2014.
• The LEA/consortium has viable curricula in all content areas and is transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and the 2009 New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards, in accordance with the state timeline (see ) and professional development opportunities are ongoing to support educators and school leaders in understanding, implementing and assessing the standards.
• The LEA/consortium and its schools have developed or will develop collaborative professional learning structures focused on improved student learning outcomes.
• The LEA/consortium will create and support a district-level evaluation pilot advisory committee to oversee and guide the implementation of the principal effectiveness evaluation system during the pilot period.
• The LEA/consortium will provide all resources necessary to implement the grant project according to specifications in the NGO, including allocation of the necessary time for training of evaluators and principals, and the time for the full implementation of the evaluation system during the grant project.
• The LEA/consortium will supply to the New Jersey Department of Education all necessary data, artifacts, and other feedback upon request.
• If participating in a consortium, the designated lead agency will be responsible for administrating the requirements of the grant in consultation with member districts.
• The LEA/consortium agrees to work with NJDOE to identify/develop student performance measures and to create processes for establishing and measuring goals for student achievement.
• The LEA/consortium liaison(s) will meet with NJDOE staff a minimum of four times throughout the course of the pilot period to discuss implementation, successes, obstacles and resources.
• The LEA/consortium will store principal practice evaluation data in an electronic and/or Internet-based data management system so it can be retained, analyzed and reported. This data will be retained for at least two years after the pilot program ends.
• The LEA/consortium will cooperate fully with NJDOE staff and their contracted external researchers.
_____________________________________________
(CSA signature)
______________________________________________
(CSA print name and title)
______________________________________________
(date)
Appendix G
Definitions and Explanations
Data Management System: In its simplest form, an electronic or Internet-based data system and process for storing, organizing, analyzing and reporting evaluation data.
Evidence: Documents or artifacts that demonstrate or confirm the work of the person being evaluated and support the rating on a given element or component of an evaluation instrument’s rubric.
Evidence-Supported Principal Practice Evaluation Instrument[2]: An evaluation instrument that provides: (1) scales or dimensions that capture multiple and varied aspects of principal performance which must be attested by knowledgeable practitioners or experts in the content prior to use in evaluating a principal’s practice; (2) differentiation of a range of principal performances as described by the score scales which must be shown in practice and/or research studies; (3) objective validation on the aspects of both concurrent and construct validity. Concurrent validity as applied to the instrument means that higher observed instructional quality as measured by the instrument is related to higher student learning achievement or gains. This relationship must be shown through provided data sets or study results. Construct validity as applied to the instrument must be attested by knowledgeable practitioners or experts in the content.
ISLLC Standards: A set of high-level policy standards to guide education leaders throughout their careers and to inform improvements in education leadership, preparation, licensure, evaluation and professional development.
Observations/Site Visits: Visits to the principal’s school site made by the principal’s evaluator to observe and gather evidence of the principal’s leadership practices.
Research-Based Principal Practice Evaluation Instrument[3]: A principal practice evaluation instrument providing scores or categorizations which have been found to be valid for specified purposes through a research process whereby: (1) studies have been completed using the current form of the instrument that have demonstrated the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid results; and (2) these results have been published in a format where they have been subject to professional peer review (and preferably blind review).
Rubrics: a scoring guide composed of criteria used to evaluate performance, a product, or a project. A rubric allows for standardized evaluation according to specified criteria, making scoring and ranking at several levels simpler and more transparent in a reliable, fair, and valid manner.
Self-Assessment: A critical review of his or her own practice done by the principal, guided by the principal practice evaluation instrument, using evidence of professional practice collected throughout the year.
S.M.A.R.T. Goals: Goals that are strategic and specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and time-bound. Some examples of S.M.A.R.T. goals are the following:
During the 2012-13 school year, 85% of third grade students will improve their writing proficiency skills in organizing events sequentially, as determined by the results of the NJASK test in ELA.
During the 2012-13 school year, my sixth grade physical education students will improve performance by 20% on each of the Presidential Fitness Test subtest areas.
See for more information.
Student Growth Percentiles: For K-12 education in New Jersey, the phrase “growth model” describes a method of measuring individual student progress on statewide assessments (the NJASK) by tracking student scores from one year to the next. Each student with at least two consecutive years of NJASK scores will receive a student growth percentile, which measures how much the student’s score changed relative to other students statewide with similar scores in previous years. Student growth percentiles range from 1 to 99, where higher numbers represent higher growth and lower numbers represent lower growth. All students, no matter the scores they earned on past NJASK tests, have an equal chance to demonstrate growth at any of the 99 percentiles on the next year’s test. Growth percentiles are calculated in ELA and mathematics for students in grades 4 through 8.
Summative Rating: A final composite rating based on all three components of the principal evaluation system: measures of professional practice (40%), measures of student achievement measures (50%) and human capital manager (10%). The four summative rating categories are: highly effective, effective, partially effective, ineffective.
Appendix H
Principal Practice Evaluation Instruments
The following list is provided as a resource for districts. It is a non-exhaustive list of providers of principal practice evaluation instruments. Inclusion of a provider on this list does not constitute an endorsement of the provider by the New Jersey Department of Education. Districts may opt to contract with any other provider that offers an evidence-supported or research-based principal practice evaluation instrument consistent with the criteria set forth in the NGO.
DC IMPACT: The DCPS Effectiveness Assessment System for School-Based Personnel
Contact: DC IMPACT TEAM
P: 202-719-6553
Email: impactdcps@
Focal Point: Educational Leadership for the 21st Century
Contact: Dr. Andie Kutinsky
P: 719-492-7967
Email: Drandie305@ 7967
McREL Principal Evaluation System (Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning)
NJ Contact: Tom Schulte
Educational Information and Resource Center (EIRC)
P: 856-582-7000 ext. 177
Email: tschulte@
Contact: Tony Davis, Principal Consultant
P: 303-632-5575
F: 303-337-3005
Email: tdavis@
Kim Marshall’s Principal Evaluation Rubrics
Contact: Kim Marshall
Fax: 877-538-6549
Email: kim.marshall48@
Dr. Robert Marzano’s Administrator Evaluation Model
Contact: Dr. Phil Warrick, Associate Vice President
P: 512-922-5114
Email: phil.warrick@
Dr. Douglas Reeves- Leadership Performance Matrix
Contact: Herb Miller
P: 303-504-9312 x220
Email: hmiller@
New Leaders
Contact: New Leaders
P: 646-792-1070
Email: info@
Dr. James Stronge’s Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Contact: Stronge and Associates Educational Consulting, LLC
Email: James.stronge@
Phone: 757-880-3881
Appendix I
Survey Instruments
The following list is provided as a resource for districts. It is a non-exhaustive list of providers of school climate/culture and 360° surveys. Inclusion of a provider or survey on this list does not constitute an endorsement of the provider or survey by the New Jersey Department of Education. Districts may opt to contract with any other provider that offer surveys consistent with the criteria set forth in the NGO.
360° Surveys
Balanced Leadership Profile developed at the Mid-Continent Regional Education Lab (MCREL)
(included with McRel Principal Evaluation System)
NASSP Leadership Skills Assessment
VAL-ED: Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
Other Survey Instruments
CALL (Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for Learning)
Learning Forward/NSDC Standards Assessment Inventory
North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey
The Tripod Surveys
Appendix J
Data Management Systems
The following list is provided as a resource for districts. It is a non-exhaustive list of providers of data management systems. Inclusion of a provider on this list does not constitute an endorsement of the provider by the New Jersey Department of Education. Districts may opt to contract with any other provider that offers data management system consistent with the criteria set forth in the NGO.
Educator Software Solutions (T-Eval) (aligned to Marshall Model)
Bloomboard (open alignment)
I-Observation (aligned to Marzano and Reeves)
McREL (included with McRel Principal Evaluation System)
My Learning Plan ® OASYS SM (aligned to the Stronge model and open alignment)
National SAM Innovation Project (open alignment)
Pearson (aligned to the Marzano model)
Under development
Task Stream (open alignment)
True North Logic (open alignment)
APPENDIX K
Principal Evaluation Schematic
|Component |Measure |Percentage of |Elementary/Middle School |High School |
| | |Overall Rating | | |
|Measures of Professional |Principal Practice |40% |District-selected research-based or evidence-supported evaluation instrument and |
|Practice |Evaluation Instrument | |rubrics aligned to ISLLC standards |
| | | | |
|50% | | | |
| |Human Capital Management|10% | |
| |Responsibilities | |Fulfilling the requirements of district policies for the supervision and evaluation |
| | | |of teachers; |
| | | |Observing and rating teachers consistently and accurately; and |
| | | |Conducting pre- and post- observation conferences and providing teachers with |
| | | |feedback that will support them in improving their practice. |
| | | |Others by district choice |
| |
|Measures of Student |Aggregated Student |35% | | |
|Performance |Performance | |10% based on student growth percentiles in|10% based on change in 11th grade HSPA |
| | | |ELA in grades 4-8 |passing rates from 2011-12 to 2012-13 |
| | | | |(first-time takers) |
|50% | | |10% based on student growth percentiles in| |
| | | |mathematics in grades 4-8 |10% based on change in 12th grade HSPA |
| | | | |passing rates from 2011-12 to 2012-13 |
| | | |15% based on S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting |(not first-time takers) |
| | | |process for two additional content areas | |
| | | |(weighted equally) |15% based on S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting |
| | | | |process for two additional content areas |
| | | | |(weighted equally) |
| | |15% | | |
| |School-Specific Student | |10% - 15% based on S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting|10% - 15% based on S.M.A.R.T. |
| |Performance Goals | |process for one school-specific student |goal-setting process for one |
| | | |achievement goal in a content area |school-specific student achievement goal |
| | | | |in a content area |
| | | |0% - 5% based on S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting | |
| | | |process for a school-specific student |0% - 5% based on S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting |
| | | |achievement or performance goal |process for a school-specific student |
| | | | |achievement or performance goal |
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NOTICE OF GRANT OPPORTUNITY - TITLE PAGE
SECTION I: 12 RT03 A01
FY NGO# WKL
TITLE OF NGO: Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) Pilot Program Principal Effectiveness
Evaluation System
DIVISION: Educator Effectiveness
OFFICE: Commissioner
SECTION II: COUNTY:
LEA/OTHER:
SCHOOL:
COUNTY NAME:_____________________________
APPLICANT AGENCY
AGENCY ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
( ) ( )
AGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER AGENCY FAX #
SCHOOL NAME
PREVIOUS FUNDING: Agency received funding from the NJ Department of Education within the last two years of submission of this application.
YES NO
PROJECT DIRECTOR (Please print or type name): _________________________________________________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (____)____________________ FAX#: (____)__________________ E-MAIL_______________________________
BUSINESS MANAGER: ________________________________ PHONE#: (____)___________ E-MAIL_____________________________
DURATION OF PROJECT: FROM: 08/01/12 TO: 10/31/13
TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED: $__________________________________________
APPLICATION CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained in the application is true and correct. The document has been duly authorized by the governing body of this agency and we will comply with the attached assurances if funding is awarded. I further certify the following is enclosed:
AGENCY TITLE PAGE
SIGNED STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES
BOARD RESOLUTION TO APPLY
APPLICATION NARRATIVE*
BUDGET SUMMARY AND BUDGET DETAIL FORMS*
ORIGINAL AND FOUR COPIES OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE
___________________________________________________ _________________________________________ ________________
SIGNATURE OF CHIEF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR TITLE DATE
OR EQUIVALENT OFFICER
___________________________________________________
(Please print or type name)
*FAILURE TO INCLUDE A REQUIRED APPLICATION COMPONENT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE NGO AND WILL RESULT IN THE APPLICATION BEING ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION (See NGO Section 3.3 for itemized list).
SECTION III:
SEND OR DELIVER APPLICATIONS TO: APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY:
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
APPLICATION CONTROL CENTER 4:00 P.M., ON 05/30/12
RIVER VIEW EXECUTIVE PLAZA
BLDG. 100, ROUTE 29 – PO Box 500
TRENTON, NJ 08625-0500
NO FACSIMILE SUBMISSION WILL BE ACCEPTED.
NO LATE APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED REGARDLESS OF THE DATE POSTMARKED.
NO ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CAN BE SUBMITTED AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION.
-----------------------
[1] See Appendices H-J for information on all these components.
[2] The definition can be lifted verbatim and used in districts’ provider specifications when soliciting proposals from providers.
[3] Same as above.
-----------------------
Measures of
Student
Performance
50%
Measures of Professional
Practice
50%
Components of a Principal Evaluation System
Aggregated School-Wide Student Performance
35%
35%
School-Specific Student Performance Goals
15%
Human Capital Management Responsibilities
10%
Principal Performance
40%
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- america s home grant program bank of america
- program named program in windows 10 startup
- down payment grant program bank of america
- teach grant program participating schools
- mmr ii vaccine information sheet
- grant county oklahoma section map
- program coordinator vs program manager
- program evaluation grant proposal sample
- article ii section 1 of the constitution
- after school program grant applications
- after school program grant proposal
- section ii answer keys to textbook chapter exercises and